beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff, around the defendant's request, shall DNA telecom (the two telecom prior to the alteration; hereinafter "the instant telecom").
(2) From April 1, 2016 to March 30, 2017, the Defendant did not receive 14,018,900 won for the goods, even though it supplied beverages, tax-free goods, paper cups, etc. to F, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the said money and the damages for delay. (2) Preliminaryly, even if the Defendant leased the instant cartel to F, it used the name of the Defendant’s business registration under the name of F, and thus, is liable to the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant merely leased the instant Moel to F, and did not conclude a contract for goods supply with the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff was well aware of the fact that F, not the Defendant, operates the instant Moel, and thus, the Defendant is not liable for the name lender’s liability.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence No. 2 as to whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a goods supply contract, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with the person being supplied with the “D” under the Defendant’s name.
However, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4 through 7, namely, ① the defendant specified and leased the instant Moel to F at KRW 300,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 17,000, and the business registration is made with a letter of commitment to continue to use the name of the defendant; ② there is no fact that the plaintiff entered into a contract for direct supply of goods with the defendant; ③ there is no fact that the plaintiff entered into a contract for direct supply with the defendant; ③ the workers working at the instant Moel were unable to receive wages; ④ the defendant was designated as the employer upon filing a complaint with the Deputy Employment and Labor Agency; ④ around January 21, 2016, the defendant was supplied with the computer to the instant Moel.